1 Tuesday, 8 April 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Registrar, could you please
6 call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is Tuesday, April 8, 2008,
10 and I welcome the representatives from the OTP, Mr. Seselj, as well as
11 all the people helping us.
12 In the meanwhile, the problem has cropped up. Witness VS-031,
13 who was scheduled to testify today, and I will not give his name because
14 he was a protected witness, well, this person told the OTP, by fax on
15 Friday, April 4th, at 8.47 that he decided to be a Defence witness after
16 all, and because of this the OTP was not able to get Witness VS-031 in
17 time here.
18 Furthermore, Witness VS-1014 is scheduled to come, but he was
19 unable to be here today because of a visa problem. However, I believe
20 that this person will be here tomorrow, at the latest.
21 Witness VS-1062, who is scheduled to come, will come, but it was
22 impossible to get him here today.
23 Because of this, the Prosecution has decided to continue with the
24 videos, the videos which we have already seen last week, but we did not
25 finish the entire list of videos last week.
1 Furthermore, I also understood the Prosecution wanted to add new
2 videos to its list. As soon as I was informed of this, I asked the legal
3 officer yesterday to immediately tell Mr. Seselj about this, about the
4 possibility that there may be new videos. The legal officer ran into
5 terrible difficulties trying to transfer this information to the UNDU.
6 She had to stay until 9.30 p.m. to try to get the information through.
7 So this is proof that, as I say, this Trial Chamber is doing its utmost
8 around the clock to make sure everything runs smoothly. Unfortunately,
9 despite all our efforts, sometimes there are difficulties, and because of
10 this some problems escape unsolved, at least can't be solved in realtime,
11 which means, Mr. Seselj, that today we will be watching the rest of the
12 videos, the videos which had been scheduled last week, plus - but
13 Mr. Mundis must confirm this to us - new videos, new videos, and you must
14 have received the list of these videos. Maybe so, maybe not.
15 Mr. Mundis, regarding the videos, will we see new videos also?
16 MR. MUNDIS: Good, Your Honours, Dr. Seselj, and everyone in and
17 around the courtroom.
18 Unfortunately, we will not be showing any additional videos this
19 morning, due to the fact that we are undertaking a review to determine
20 the precise videos that absolutely must be shown, and as a result of that
21 we determined that it would be best for us to come up with a priority "A"
22 list of videos, and we were not able to sort through all of those videos
23 in the time that was available to us. So we will simply be showing those
24 videos which were previously listed and for which everyone in the
25 courtroom has sufficient notice that those videos would be played.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, very well.
2 I was talking about difficulties. Here we have one. The light
3 goes on, the light goes out, but fortunately the light is back on.
4 Now, let's go into private session, because I have something that
5 requires private session, Ms. Registrar.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before that, first I wish to
7 express my standpoint on some issues you have already raised,
8 Mr. President.
9 Yesterday, in the prison, I was not informed of your intention to
10 show new video clips today. Yesterday, our floor moved, so maybe they
11 couldn't find us at our new address, because there's some kind of
12 construction work going on there. However, that's not a problem. I
13 could adapt to these surprising announcements that new video clips are
14 going to be shown. I don't prepare for these videos because I don't have
15 a DVD projector in my prison cell, so there's no way I can prepare.
16 I'm always prepared to have videos shown in the courtroom, even
17 if not announced, as long as I'm provided with a list of these clips in
18 the Serbian language.
19 I have to tell you, however, that I never previously contacted
20 Protected Witness VS-031. He contacted my legal advisers for the first
21 time on Friday. He personally sought them out, with his lawyer, and on
22 that occasion he made a statement to them. I haven't received it yet.
23 I can obtain it in the course of today. But in that statement, he said,
24 among other things, that he was disgusted by the acquittal of Ramos
25 Haradinaj, and he refuses to cooperate with The Hague Prosecutor in any
2 He has put himself at the disposal of my Defence team, but we'll
3 consider whether or not to call him as a Defence witness. I just wish
4 you to know that we never had any previous contact with him.
5 A third point, very important, in my view, is that I demand that
6 you re-examine your decision to admit 92 ter witness statements,
7 especially in the case of Witness VS-1014. This witness I consider to be
8 a very important one, and I have some important questions to put to him.
9 But I will only do so if he testifies viva voce.
10 I therefore propose that the OTP has one and a half hours at
11 their disposal and I one and a half hours, one hour of reserve for
12 questions from the Trial Chambers and procedural issues, and we will be
13 able to deal with that witness in one day. I have important questions to
14 put to that witness, but unless you agree to my proposal, I will
15 certainly not put them.
16 And, fourthly, yesterday I received from the OTP a document
17 entitled "Receipt 309." This was delivered to me as a public document,
18 so I will mention a name contained in it.
19 The OTP disclosed to me a letter from a certain Dusan Damjanovic
20 from Kragujevac. I have never heard of him before. This letter bears
21 number 06328586, so I assume it can be provided in electronic form on the
22 monitor and that you will be able to see it before you, if the Registry
23 makes this possible. This Dusan Damjanovic, and let me mention that he
24 was never mentioned as an OTP witness in this case and no document I
25 received bore his name, nor was he mentioned, to the best of my
1 recollection, in any of the documents. However, here he's informing the
2 OTP in The Hague that he doesn't wish to be a Prosecution witness in the
3 proceedings against me, and he says that Natasha Kandic called him up
4 more than once with her collaborators in order for him to be interviewed
5 by investigators. So he wants to know in what capacity Natasha Kandic is
6 calling him up or, rather, his lawyer is asking this, in what capacity
7 she's calling him up, attempting to persuade him to be interviewed by the
9 I did not know that this man existed until last night. I had
10 never contacted him. And although the investigation is over and the OTP
11 list is complete, some names are still cropping up. Natasha Kandic is
12 attempting to exert pressure on certain people still, so the OTP should
13 tell us in what capacity Natasha Kandic is acting. Is she an official
14 representative of the OTP or is she some sort of external associate?
15 She's eminence grise in The Hague OTP.
16 I don't know about this man. I don't know what he might testify
17 about. I had never heard his name before. But now my legal advisers are
18 going to contact him, and we will see who he is and what this is all
19 about. He may be useful as a Defence witness, but I can't say that in
20 advance. However, I'm duty-bound to inform you that such things are
21 happening here and nobody is providing any kind of explanation.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
23 Two things, Mr. Seselj, and I will deal with them in reverse
25 First, Dusan Damjanovic, if I understand you well, this witness,
1 who is not on the 65 ter list, contacted your associates to tell them --
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me correct you, Mr. President.
3 He has not contacted my collaborators yet. He has sent a letter to the
4 OTP, and last night the OTP delivered to me a copy of the letter with its
5 ERN number.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You are right to
7 correct this.
8 So this Dusan Damjanovic, who you do not know and whom you have
9 never heard of before, sent a letter to the OTP to say that
10 Natasha Kandic had approached him so that he would testify, and he is
11 saying that he would rather be in favour of being a Defence witness,
12 rather than a Prosecution witness.
13 Mr. Mundis, does this mean that you are continuing the
14 investigation and collecting testimonies from potential witnesses in
15 order to possibly ask for -- possibly call some witnesses? Is this the
16 framework in which we have this witness, which seemed to be unknown by
17 the Defence?
18 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, in the event, the Prosecution would
19 seek leave to amend its witness list, I can assure everyone that we would
20 do so in a timely manner. This person, Mr. Dusan Damjanovic was, to the
21 best of my knowledge, unknown to the Prosecution prior to him sending
22 this faxed letter. I don't believe at this point we're even close to
23 potentially calling this person as a witness. I don't believe we've ever
24 interviewed him. We've never spoken to him. The Office of the
25 Prosecutor gets faxes and correspondence and information on a daily basis
1 from a large number of sources, not just relating to this case but to all
2 of our cases. When we determine that that information should be
3 disclosed, we disclose it. But at this point, it's entirely premature to
4 be discussing whether or not this person will be a witness for the
5 Prosecution, or the Defence, or for anyone else. He simply sent us a
6 letter, and we determined that that needed to be disclosed to the
7 accused. And that's as far as this issue has been taken.
8 And so it's certainly not at the point where we're contemplating
9 seeking leave to add Mr. Damjanovic to the witness list. We've never
10 even spoken to this person, to the best of my knowledge, and so it's
11 entirely premature at this point to be discussing anything relating to
12 this witness or potential witness as it relates to this case.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
14 The second thing, Witness VS-1014. Let me remind you that on
15 February 27th, the Trial Chamber decided -- made a decision according to
16 which this witness would be heard as a 92 ter witness. Since then, no
17 certification of appeal has been filed. Of course, if need be, the
18 Chamber can review its decision in light of two criteria. The first
19 criterion, a new circumstance. And what is this new circumstance which
20 would lead the Trial Chamber to review its decision? And a second
21 criterion, err in law, the Trial Chamber could be made an error, could
22 have erred in law.
23 Now, Mr. Seselj, regarding this first circumstance, the first
24 criterion. What would be the new circumstance that would lead the
25 Chamber to decide to switch to a viva voce procedure with one hour thirty
1 for Prosecution and one hour thirty minutes for Defence? Could you
2 please tell us?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have decided not
4 to appeal your latest decision because I have expressed my objections to
5 the application of Rule 92 ter more than once. So I don't want my legal
6 advisers and you to waste time about this. I know that my appeal would
7 be rejected. I am concentrating on this witness, who is supposed to
8 appear tomorrow.
9 A new circumstance which might be relevant to your decision and
10 induce you to change it is that his statement about certain events, given
11 to the Muslim authorities, differs considerably to the statement compiled
12 in his name by the OTP and signed by him. These two statements are so
13 different from each other that it would be quite incredible for you to
14 turn a deaf ear to my motion. However, that's up to you.
15 I have some very important specific questions, concrete
16 questions, to put to that witness, but they are not important enough for
17 you to alter your decision. You can look at his statement given before
18 the Muslim authorities and the statement disclosed by the OTP, and you
19 will see to what extent the two statements differ.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
21 Let me ask the Prosecution about these new circumstances. It is
22 true that when the Trial Chamber made its decision on December 27th, 2008
23 [as interpreted], we did not know that a statement had been made to the
24 Muslim authorities. This emerged just a few days ago when another
25 witness said that he had been heard by the Muslim authorities. We knew
1 nothing of this.
2 What is the position of the OTP regarding the possibility of
3 switching this 92 ter into a viva voce witness?
4 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honours, there is absolutely no new
5 circumstance whatsoever, other than the fact that Dr. Seselj has now
6 decided that perhaps he would like to cross-examine the witness.
7 Your Honours are well aware of the position taken by the accused
8 in this case with respect to Rule 92 ter. As a matter of fact, just last
9 week the Presiding Judge, in effect, advised the accused that perhaps he
10 should reconsider his decision. There is absolutely no reason or
11 justification whatsoever for the Trial Chamber to reconsider its
12 decision. The accused always will have the opportunity, pursuant to
13 Rule 92 ter, to cross-examine the witness. The witness will be brought
14 here. The witness can be challenged with any previous statements that he
15 may or may not have given. He can be fully cross-examined as to that
16 statement or statements. What the Prosecution would certainly oppose
17 would be any situation where the accused declines to cross-examine the
18 witness and then subsequently sought to tender into evidence a prior
19 statement of that witness which the accused thought would be
20 inconsistent having had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness on
21 that point and then having decided not to do so.
22 There is absolutely no bar to the accused cross-examining this 92
23 ter witness or any other 92 ter witness.
24 This procedure, as the Trial Chamber is well aware, is designed
25 to expedite the proceedings. The Prosecution, in its pre-trial filings,
1 had indicated preference for a large number of Rule 92 ter witness in
2 order to put before the Trial Chamber all of the evidence which the Trial
3 Chamber will require in order to fulfill its obligations with respect to
4 making final and ultimate decisions in this case. In the event the
5 Prosecution is unable to rely upon Rule 92 ter, then we will certainly be
6 coming back before the Trial Chamber asking for significantly longer time
7 in order to lead the evidence that we feel is necessary in order to
8 establish the charges set forth in the indictment.
9 I cannot stress enough, Your Honours, the simple fact that the
10 accused has decided not to cross-examine 92 ter witnesses. That's his
11 choice. If he chooses not to do so, the responsibility for that falls
12 squarely on his shoulders. The witness will be here. The witness can be
13 cross-examined. There is absolutely no reason for the Trial Chamber to
14 reconsider its decision simply because the accused decides he now wants
15 to cross-examine the witness and he had earlier made a stand that he will
16 not, as a matter of principle, cross-examine any of the 92 ter witnesses.
17 So the Prosecution would vehemently oppose reconsideration of the Trial
18 Chamber earlier decision concerning this witness, and we will again
19 telegraph for the future that in the event we are unable to rely upon
20 Rule 92 ter as a means of putting forth the evidence that we need in the
21 limited time available to us, we will have no choice but to come back to
22 the Trial Chamber and ask for significantly more time in order to lead
23 the evidence that we feel duty-bound to lead so that the Trial Chamber
24 has all of the evidence that it needs to reach the ultimate decisions
25 that the Trial Chamber is called upon to decide.
1 [Technical difficulties]
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's come back
3 to -- let's resume, because we had a technical problem.
4 The Prosecution decides that there is no new circumstances.
5 Now, Mr. Seselj, over the last three days I've tried to think
6 about the stand you took, which was to systematically oppose Rule 92 ter.
7 I tried to understand why you reject this procedure. It's quite
8 complicated to try and anticipate why someone is doing something. I was
9 thinking and I wondered whether maybe at first you were not making a
10 mistake as to the admission of the written statement. Maybe you're
11 thinking that the written statement will automatically be admitted if the
12 Prosecutor asks for Rule 92 ter to be applied. But if this is what
13 you're thinking, this is a mistake. The Trial Chamber will only rule on
14 the admissibility of the written statement after the cross-examination of
15 the witness.
16 For example, if it suddenly appears that a written statement
17 totally contradicts another statement that would have been made to
18 another jurisdiction, well, in such a case the Trial Chamber could very
19 well decide not to admit the written statement. The written statement
20 will only be admitted after the cross-examination and after the Judges
21 have heard the cross-examination. It's only after having assessed the
22 entire procedure that the Judges will decide to admit the written
23 statement or not to admit it. That's the first thing.
24 The second thing: I also wondered whether, in reality, if you
25 just didn't feel that you -- you felt that there was a deficit of
1 information for the audience following the trial, because it's -- when
2 there is a written statement, no questions are -- no specific questions
3 are asked as to this written statement, only a few general questions are
4 asked, and because of this part of the written statement would be hidden
5 from the audience, whereas in a viva voce procedure you're assured that
6 the trial is public and you're assured that the audience will hear
7 everything the witness is saying. Of course, when there is a written
8 statement, the witness just says, "I confirm what I said to the
9 investigator," and then the cross-examination starts.
10 So I wondered whether this was not one of your motivations, to
11 reject this 92 ter -- the Rule 92 ter procedure, because I must say very
12 humbly that as of now, I have not really fully understood the real
13 motivations behind your opposition to this procedure.
14 As I reminded you, you know, you can use this procedure yourself,
15 you can resort to this procedure yourself, when you have a number of
16 witnesses you want to call and when you don't have enough time to call
17 all your witnesses to ask all your questions, you can resort to
18 Rule 92 ter yourself.
19 So this is where things stand now. If you wish to take the
20 floor, you may, but I must tell you that the Bench does not really
21 understand your position. We're a bit lost here. We don't really
22 understand why you so vehemently oppose Rule 92 ter, especially since, as
23 Mr. Mundis said, you have the opportunity to cross-examine this witness.
24 Furthermore, when you have elements at your disposal that could
25 contradict the written statement, according to the Rules you can confront
1 the witness with this. This is Rule 98(ii). I will quote it in full so
2 that it is on the record.
3 Rule 90(H)(ii):
4 "In the cross-examination of a witness who is able to give
5 evidence relevant to the case for the cross-examining party, counsel
6 should put to that witness the nature of the case of the party for whom
7 that counsel appears which is in contradiction of the evidence given by
8 the witness."
9 Which means that if you have this declaration, this statement to
10 the Muslim authorities, and that in the procedure we have the written
11 statement, well, you can resort to this Rule. But I believe my fellow
12 Judge would like to take the floor.
13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes. I would like to add one
14 thing to what the Presiding Judge just said.
15 I understood Mr. Seselj's opposition to Rule 92 ter as follows:
16 In principle, it is against -- he's against any trial based on documents,
17 which is why also he is also presenting all sorts of documents when there
18 is a witness, but never asks for these documents to be admitted.
19 Therefore, this is, of course, as the Prosecutor has said -- I'm sorry, I
20 don't know why I'm hearing the English. Can you speak in English now,
21 please? I can't hear it anymore. I'm sorry, I had a problem, because I
22 could hear both languages at the same time.
23 So this is a question of principle. This Tribunal, for reasons
24 that have been decided a year ago, maybe more than that - I don't
25 remember - in order to speed up the trials and in the interests of the
1 accused, the Trial Chamber has decided, as regards 92 ter, that this
2 should be the case, so we, the Bench, cannot accept challenges as a
3 matter of principle.
4 I would like to add something to what the Presiding Judge has
5 said; namely, this procedure -- to corroborate what he has said, this
6 procedure does not mean that the prior statement of the witness is
7 automatically admitted. This is why I don't see in what way the trial
8 does not benefit from the fact that this is an oral -- that these are
9 oral and public proceedings if Rule 92 ter is applied. The accused has
10 all latitude and has even more than that, because he might even rely on
11 those challenges to the prior statement rather than if the witness
12 testifies viva voce, because when the witness testifies viva voce, he
13 starts telling a story all over again, whereas if it's 92 ter, he can
14 work and rely on the contradictions that stem from this. So as far as
15 logic is concerned, I believe that the Trial Chamber should not bear this
16 in mind and the accused can work on this and challenge it.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I fully agree with what my
18 fellow Judge has said, something which might have escaped some people.
19 We have realised that you never ask for documents to be admitted. You
20 might do this at a later stage, but as my fellow Judge has just said, as
21 far as you're concerned, you feel that the procedure should be a fully
22 oral procedure, which would explain your position. In other words, you
23 would not be in favour of any form of statement.
24 Now, this is just on a personal note, Mr. Seselj. I must tell
25 you that as far as I'm concerned, given that I have been in my job for
1 the last 30 years and I've been involved in criminal law, a written
2 document is always important, and sometimes it is even more important
3 than what a witness can say when he comes and talks about events which
4 occurred more than 20 years ago, and he may suffer from memory loss.
5 However, a document that was drafted 20 years ago can be relied upon,
6 unless of course it's a forged document. This is why it is extremely
7 important to have documents. And if, as a matter of principle, you
8 declare that you are only in favour of oral proceedings, well, this could
9 handicap your own Defence because you might have crucial documents that
10 you wish to have admitted in support of your case. In that case, those
11 documents could be vital to you.
12 This is a mixed -- these are mixed proceedings. It's a
13 combination of civil law and common law proceedings, and this Tribunal is
14 tending to admit more and more evidence that has already been admitted in
15 other cases, or in favour of admitting material evidence that was
16 collected through documents. Oral testimony is one thing, but oral
17 testimony, when it is not corroborated by evidence, has less of a
18 probative value. Oral testimony in addition to documents has a greater
19 probative value.
20 Would you like to say something again on this crucial
21 issue, i.e., Rule 92 ter?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'll take these matters in
23 reverse order as well.
24 Firstly, as far as the issue raised by Judge Lattanzi, your
25 colleague, is concerned, the issue on documents that I submit or do not
1 submit. I have submitted documents to you. I suggested they be admitted
2 into evidence, but you refused this request. I have tried to collect 160
3 documents through my associates, assistants. They concerned the Sarajevo
4 battlefield, and these documents show that there were no volunteers from
5 the Serbian Radical Party there at the relevant places and at the
6 relevant times. So I'm talking about volunteers who were sent to the
7 battlefield from Serbia. The Prosecution said that they don't bring this
8 into question, but you refuse to admit this into evidence.
9 Secondly, as far as Prosecution documents are concerned, you are
10 quite prepared to admit even the most trivial documents into evidence.
11 There are photographs that are marked with arrows by someone or that had
12 previously been marked with arrows by someone, and these are things that
13 I have never contested or challenged. I never challenged the idea that
14 there was a crime in Ovcara and that should have been sufficient for you.
15 That crime has been demonstrated before this court, before the courts in
16 Belgrade so there is no doubt as to the existence of a crime there. But
17 many Prosecution documents of a trivial nature have been admitted into
18 evidence, and therefore I don't think that I'm being treated fairly. I
19 won't suggest anything be admitted into evidence. I'll use documents in
20 the course of my cross-examination. But as to what you admit into
21 evidence or not, well, finally, that's not something that concerns me.
22 Secondly, the Registry is very late with the translation of those
23 documents. They haven't even translated documents that I submitted five
24 months ago, and I'm no longer providing the Registry with new documents
25 for translation. Those two large books has been extended until the
1 beginning of the Defence case, or the translation of those two large
3 I'm adapting to the situation. I'm not protesting.
4 As far as Rule 92 ter is concerned, that Rule provides for the
5 possibility of taking statements outside the framework of a trial or
6 hearing. Rule 71 provides for the way in which such statements should be
7 taken, a statement of any witness, if it is to be admitted into
8 evidence -- well, such a statement should be taken by the Prosecution in
9 my presence or in the presence of a member of my legal team. And as
10 such, a document can be admitted into evidence.
11 The legal nature of statements taken by the Prosecution outside
12 the framework of the courtroom and without the presence of a member of
13 the Defence team is such that such statements can be part of the
14 indictment, but not part of the evidence. Everything noted or drafted by
15 the Prosecution as part of the indictment or of something that supports
16 the indictment, not evidence. Evidence must be something objectively
17 obtained with regard to the purpose and intentions of the Prosecution.
18 The Prosecution cannot present evidence, and here the current practice is
19 for the Prosecution to present evidence by taking such statements and by
20 suggesting that they be admitted into evidence and also by putting
21 forward members of its own team as experts in this case.
22 In certain other cases, the Prosecution investigators would
23 appear, and before the Judges in the courtroom they would summarise the
24 testimony of a large number of witnesses, and that was a procedure
25 followed in some cases. The investigator took statements for about 20
1 witnesses who were victims and then compiled a statement of his own, a
2 summary. And in certain cases, the Prosecution called such investigators
3 to testify, instead of calling the 20 victims, the 20 witnesses. They
4 will call, in such cases, their own investigator, who tells you about the
5 experiences of the victims, and this is not something that can be
6 accepted, in legal terms. This will go down in the history of
7 international law, I'm quite persuaded of the fact, and I don't want to
8 adapt myself to such a procedure.
9 You should bring 92 ter in line with Rule 71, because there's a
10 confrontation here between 92 ter and the main rules as laid out in
11 Rule 71. Not a single Trial Chamber has tried to resolve the problems of
12 that conflict between those two Rules because of the corrupted or
13 incompetent lawyers who work here.
14 Proceed as you wish. In one specific case, I asked you to
15 re-examine your decision. If you refuse to do so, I'll adapt to that,
16 and that's it, but I will not cooperate in this procedure that is
17 contrary to the law. It's contrary to the law to have such provisions in
18 the Rules and to include previous statements of witnesses, statements
19 drafted by the Prosecution. The Prosecution also confirms that they
20 drafted such statements. There's no doubt about this. This is something
21 that has been compiled by the Prosecution. The Prosecution knows that
22 the witness is not capable of telling the story in an identical manner
23 here in the courtroom.
24 The last witness, we had a notorious criminal and quite obviously
25 a liar. Well, in his case, the Prosecution wrote a statement for him,
1 and the witness, who was prepared to lie all the time, could not remember
2 all of his incredible lies. He wasn't able to repeat those lies in the
3 courtroom. I reminded him of the lies that he forgot to mention or
4 didn't have time to mention, because it's more difficult to remember lies
5 than facts, it's easier to forget lies. Someone who lies a lot will trip
6 up on his own lies, whereas facts leave indelible traces in one's mind
7 until the end of one's life. And when witnesses who are victims are
8 concerned, that's even more so the case. When someone starts
9 manipulating with the tragedy of certain victims, well, this is quite
10 simply a new crime.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Chamber will
12 deliberate on the matter to see whether we stand by our previous decision
13 or modify it, in light of what you have said and in light of what
14 Mr. Mundis has told us.
15 So we shall now show the videos up until 10.30, last week's
17 Mr. Mundis, you have the floor.
18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Perhaps before or while we get these videos ready to go, I do
20 have two other very short matters that I'd like to raise. The first
21 one --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, there is another issue
23 which I wanted to address and which I didn't because Mr. Seselj wanted to
24 take the floor, so I shall give you the floor, Mr. Mundis, in a few
25 moments, but I would like to ask the Registrar to move into closed
1 session, please.
2 [Private session]
11 Page 5831 redacted. Private session.
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session.
14 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Just two very brief matters to raise before we commence with the
16 videotapes. The first concerns a list that was provided to the Registry
17 for transmission to the accused yesterday. This is the list that follows
18 from our discussion, I believe it was on the 20th of March, in which we
19 indicated we would make a list of all videos in the Prosecution's
20 possession available to the accused so that he could review that list. I
21 wanted to indicate that a list was provided. I'm not sure if it was
22 handed to the accused yesterday or perhaps this morning or later today,
23 but we have provided him with a 979-page spreadsheet in English, which he
24 agreed to accept at the earlier hearing, and I did want to follow up with
25 the Trial Chamber on that because I informed you that I would be
1 notifying you when that lift was made available. So the accused either
2 has or will have shortly a list of -- a 979-page list of videos in the
3 Prosecution's possession with a tick box for him to indicate which
4 videotapes he would like and we will endeavour to disclose those to the
6 The second point, Your Honours: Yesterday afternoon, the
7 Prosecution filed a motion seeking leave to amend its 65 ter exhibit list
8 to include a booklet we've produced of insignia and uniforms worn by
9 certain armed formations and military units during the conflict 1991 to
10 1995. Attached to that motion was a DVD containing an electronic version
11 of this booklet. I do have about six copies of that book here in the
12 courtroom today, and if it would be helpful, I can distribute those to
13 the Trial Chamber, legal officer, and the accused at this point in time.
14 Perhaps if I could have the assistance of the usher, we could
15 distribute these books.
16 I will also indicate, for the benefit of Dr. Seselj, that the
17 translation of the first couple of pages of this book is -- into the
18 Serbian language is forthcoming. Other than that, everything, I believe,
19 is self-explanatory in the booklet. But the cover page and the first
20 page are two that require translation, is in the process of being done,
21 and will be disclosed as soon as that's available. And, again, I simply
22 wanted to prepare or produce for the Chamber a hard copy of this book.
23 It is the subject, as I indicated, of a motion to add to our exhibit
24 list, and that was filed yesterday afternoon.
25 Thank you.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Mundis. The
2 Trial Chamber will, of course, examine this book, which is made up of
3 photographs of soldiers and various insignia, which will help us better
4 understand these insignia which are mentioned.
5 On page 109, for instance, the White Eagles, we can see the
6 insignia here fairly well. Two eagles are shown. The Assault Battalion
7 of the White Eagles. This could be extremely interesting. Mr. Seselj,
8 of course, will give us his comments, if he has any, on the insignia in
9 question. If need be, this booklet will be given an exhibit number, but
10 only once Mr. Seselj has told us whether he is in favour or against, and
11 if he's opposed to it, for what reasons. But take your time, Mr. Seselj.
12 We are not going to be asking you today to take a stand on this. But if
13 you tell us right away that you agree, then we can give this booklet an
14 exhibit number.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I've already had a
16 look at the document. This can be dealt with immediately. I know
17 everything about the document, and I think it's impossible to have this
18 document admitted into evidence because we don't know who the author of
19 the document is. This isn't stated anywhere in the document. I don't
20 know whether this book was published somewhere or not, or did members of
21 the Prosecution compile this on the basis of their own criteria? No
22 explanation is provided. This isn't a book in any sense of the term.
23 It's only a book in that someone compiled something in this way. It's a
24 handmade book. It can't admitted into evidence. We don't know when this
25 was drafted. We'd need an expert report to accompany this.
1 And as I had a look at this immediately, from page 78, the
2 insignia of the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party, have a look at
3 page 79, this was never the insignia used by volunteers from the Serbian
4 Radical Party, nor was it the official flag of the Serbian Radical Party
5 or its section of the Serbian Chetnik Movement. We never produced a flag
6 of this kind, never, and the Serbian Chetnik Movement didn't have any
7 particular insignia that distinguished it from the Serbian Radical Party.
8 The Serbian Radical Party has one symbol, and that symbol is used for all
9 the party -- for the entire party and all its sections. So page 79, what
10 we have on 79, is invented. Such flags were the handmade products of
11 individuals, of certain enthusiasts, certain individuals who had fallen
12 in love with the Chetnik traditions, so we didn't believe that old
13 Chetnik traditions needed such symbols.
14 On page 80, this is the flag of the Serbian Radical Party. It's
15 been visually modified to a certain extent here, but on the whole that's
16 the flag.
17 Page 81, this flag and emblem have nothing to do with the Serbian
18 Radical Party, nor did the Serbian Radical Party ever produce anything of
19 this kind. This has been produced by someone on an independent basis.
20 It's handmade work. There's not a single company in Serbia that is
21 involved in producing flags, symbols, badges, and that produced these
22 items in a serial manner.
23 Page 82, similarly, this has been nothing to do with the Serbian
24 Radical Party. The Serbian Radical Party never produced items of this
25 kind, and our members never had such emblems on them.
1 On page 83, this is an emblem that again is a handmade emblem.
2 It does say "The Serbian Chetnik Movement" on it, that's true, but this
3 was never the official emblem used by the Serbian Chetnik Movement.
4 There was a section within the Serbian Radical Party, that was a branch
5 of the Serbian Radical Party. Perhaps it was an independent Chetnik
6 movement. Such movements appeared in various places.
7 On page 84, again this emblem says "The Serbian Chetnik
8 Movement," but we don't know who produced this or when, and it has
9 nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party.
10 Again we're talking about someone's handiwork here. On page 85
11 it says "The Main Staff of the Serbian Chetnik Movement." It has
12 absolutely nothing to do with the Serbian Radical Party. The Serbian
13 Radical Party never had items of this kind, nor did it produce or
14 distribute such items.
15 On page 86, it's one of the modified versions of the old cockade
16 Chetnik caps. Someone produced these items as souvenirs and sold them in
17 the street. This was never officially accepted by the Serbian Radical
19 And then if we carry on and have a look at page 87, we can see
20 that it has to do with the Ravno Gora Serbian Chetniks. Well, these
21 Chetniks never had such official insignia. This is someone's handiwork.
22 Again, the Prosecution has to compile a list of the various Chetnik
23 organisations in existence in Serbia, Montenegro, at Republika Srpska,
24 and the Republic of Serbian Krajina, they had to break it down on the
25 base of these various organisations.
1 On page 88, yet again this is a -- is some produce of symbols
2 that was sold at street stalls. This wasn't legally produced, it wasn't
3 legally sold. This was sold from cardboard boxes in the streets of
5 On page 89, well, look, this emblem contains the Serbian flag,
6 the skull, crossed swords, and it says "Freedom or Death." That's a
7 Chetnik slogan that's one century old, but it has absolutely nothing to
8 do with the Serbian Radical Party. It doesn't say the Serbian Radical
9 Party. It doesn't say the Serbian Chetnik Movement, either.
10 On page 90, the Sarajevo Chetnik Detachment, well, that's the
11 detachment that later joined the Army of Republika Srpska. It was the
12 2nd Company of a certain battalion within a certain brigade of the Army
13 of Republika Srpska and it has nothing to do with the Serbian Radical
15 On page 91, you can see it again, a cap with a cockade or kind of
16 cockade cap. What does this have to do with the Serbian Radical Party?
17 The Serbian Radical Party cannot appropriate a traditional Serbian cap or
19 On page 92, we have the traditional Serbian "sajkaca" cap with a
20 cockade cap. What does this have to do with the Serbian Radical Party?
21 We can't appropriate such items because this is the heritage of the
22 entire Serbian people.
23 On page 93, you can see a group of individuals, two of whom have
24 beards, and one of them has the flag -- or a flag with Chetnik symbols.
25 Where's the proof that this has anything to do with the Serbian Radical
1 Party? One of them is wearing a Montenegrin cap. It's the second one.
2 On page 94, again you can see a group of soldiers. This is a
3 photograph we've already seen in the courtroom, and one of the soldiers
4 is wearing a Subara cap and a kind of -- a version of the cockade cap.
5 We can't see what version is at stake. What does this have to do with
6 the Serbian Radical Party again?
7 Sir, on page 95, 96, and 97, on those pages you can see two
8 versions of the insignia of the Special Manda Unit in Bilek [phoen].
9 This one individual became a member of the Serbian Radical Party. I did
10 declare that he was a Chetnik Vojvoda, but the Serbian Radical Party
11 didn't form his unit, and his unit wasn't formed of volunteers from the
12 Serbian Radical Party it sent to the unit from Serbia.
13 Mitar Maksimovic, Manda, subsequently joined the Serbian Radical
14 Party. He was a member of ours, later he was the president of the
15 municipality in Bilek, the people elected him, Mr. President, and then
16 five or six years ago he died in a traffic accident. So none of this can
17 be tied to the Serbian Radical Party, apart from the flag on page 80.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You have made your
20 Mr. Mundis, first we'd like to know who made this document. I
21 assume that it is the OTP. The second observation, we would like to know
22 where these insignias come from, which witness brought them. We know
23 nothing of this. There are insignias that don't request any comments.
24 The one on page 5, JNA insignia, I believe this will not be challenged.
25 As to the TOs, well, Mr. Seselj now is challenging a good number
1 of insignias, starting with number 80 and so on and so forth, as of
2 page 78. All this is under SRS volunteers or SCP volunteers, and he is
3 challenging all this.
4 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the photo book indeed was compiled by
5 the Office of the Prosecutor based on a large number of sources. Many of
6 those insignia are simply -- or uniforms are simply photographs that are
7 in our possession. The information comes from a wide variety of sources.
8 There's not one witness who provided us with the photos, or pictures, or
9 actual uniform insignia themselves.
10 Let me just put on the record and make it very clear the purpose
11 of this book. It doesn't serve any independent purpose or function. The
12 usefulness of such a tool is to assist the Trial Chamber in those
13 situations where we have a live witness come in and testify about what he
14 saw on someone's uniform, and in that sense the proper recourse for the
15 accused is to cross-examine the witness. For example, we bring in a
16 witness who says, "I saw a soldier wearing a uniform with insignia on it.
17 It looks to me or to the best of my recollection it was the patch on
18 page 112." If the accused thinks that that patch on page 112 is a bogus
19 patch or something that was made up or something that we created, he can
20 cross-examine the witness on that. It's simply a tool to allow us to
21 visualise the various insignia that witnesses might indicate in the
22 courtroom here during their testimony that a person was wearing. The
23 book serves no value whatsoever in the course of the witness testimony,
24 and the proper recourse for the accused would be to cross-examine the
25 witness who says, "I saw a someone wearing a uniform or an insignia that
1 looks just like the one on page 7 or page 12 or page 96."
2 So it's not some sort of expert compilation booklet that we'll be
3 relying on in the absence of any witness testimony, so I think that to a
4 certain extent it's a bit of much a do about nothing. The book serves no
5 purpose unless and until a witness comes in and says, "This is the
6 uniform I saw someone wearing on the day of this attack," and the accused
7 can cross-examine on that point, the Trial Chamber can ask questions on
8 that point. The book, sitting on a shelf by itself, serves no purpose
9 whatsoever without witness testimony to identify the various patches or
10 insignia. I would also guess during the course of this trial that a
11 large number of those pages in that booklet probably won't be identified
12 by anyone, but we simply put together a compilation of material gathered
13 by this office over the course of many years concerning uniforms and
14 insignia, and there's nothing secret about that. It's simply something
15 that would assist the Trial Chamber again in visualising material that --
16 that would be helpful to the Trial Chamber in terms of identifying
17 uniforms, units, insignia, et cetera.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the insignia on
19 page 80, the insignia of the Serbian Radical Party, you're not contesting
20 this one, are you, two eagles, "Serbian Radical Party" on a blue
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is a
23 strangely-deformed flag of the Serbian Radical Party. The eagle is
24 elongated. The letters are too close together. The original Serbian
25 Radical Party flag has an eagle which is not elongated in this way. And
1 the spacing between the letters is greater. The letters are in a
2 semicircle. Here somebody intentionally wanted the letters to form the
3 letter U, which has an extremely negative meaning in the Serbian national
4 consciousness because it is reminiscent of the Ustasha in World War II.
5 We would never have done something like this. If it's a semicircle, then
6 it's the flag of the Serbian Radical Party.
7 So this is an intentionally-distorted flag of the Serbian Radical
8 Party, in my opinion.
9 However, I wish to draw your attention to something else, Judge.
10 This is something put together in haste. It's not the result of
11 systematic research. It's simply a compilation of things the OTP has
12 come across over a number of years. It might have a certain value in the
13 proceedings. For example, had I had this available when the two Muslim
14 protected witnesses were testifying, and one of them mentioned some sort
15 of Seselj assault units, you remember how I challenged this. I had never
16 heard of assault units. And on page 111, we have a symbol "White Eagles
17 Assault Battalion." Had I had this at the time, I might have shown this
18 to the witness and said, "Did these assault troops which were allegedly
19 mine wear this sort of insignia?" And had the witness confirmed this,
20 this would have proved my point. However, the form has not been met for
21 this to qualify as evidence, because the OTP cannot produce evidence.
22 We can be grateful to the Prosecutor, because we have now
23 discovered that the OTP is the author of this book, because it provided
24 us with material that we can use with more or less success.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, given Mr. Seselj's
1 objection, we will not give a number to this book. But if a witness
2 says, "I saw an insignia," that the OTP can show him the book at
3 such-and-such a page, and say, "Yes, this is what I saw," "This is not
4 what I saw," and through this means we will be able to obtain
6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I apologise. I want to say that
7 we will not give a number -- will not admit this document because the
8 Prosecution so far has not tendered this document.
9 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Judge Lattanzi.
10 Yes, at this point, Your Honours, all we're asking is that we be
11 allowed to add it to the exhibit list. We're not simply tendering it.
12 And, of course, to reiterate, in light of the accused's last comments,
13 this book is not evidence until a witness or witnesses come in and start
14 pointing to various pages or describing material on various pages of the
15 book, at which point in time we will, in fact, tender the book into
16 evidence, or at least those pages of it that a witness has identified.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So in the first
18 step, you're just asking for this document to be added to the exhibit
19 list, and whenever witnesses come and recognise such-and-such insignia,
20 you will tender the page in question?
21 MR. MUNDIS: That's correct, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I think everyone
24 It's 10.20. I think we should have a 20-minute break, and then
25 we will resume with the videos, since we will have checked all
1 administrative and technical problems.
2 Another topic, Mr. Mundis, first?
3 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, with all due respect, it would be
4 very helpful perhaps after the break if we could get a ruling from the
5 Trial Chamber as to the reconsideration on the 92 ter issue. That, of
6 course, affects our planning in terms of how we discuss with the witness
7 who is --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll consult on this
9 immediately. We're going to study it and deliberate over the break.
10 --- Recess taken at 10.18 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 10.42 a.m.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Chamber will
13 issue its decision on whether or not we will apply Rule 92 ter for
14 Witness VS-1014.
15 The Trial Chamber deliberated and maintains its former position,
16 the position of February 27th, 2008. Therefore, the OTP will tender the
17 written statement and will ask the normal questions to the witness in
18 order to confirm the entirety of the written statement. The Prosecutor
19 will show a number of documents. I don't believe that there's many, I
20 think there's only two. After this, the Trial Chamber will put questions
21 to the witness so that the witness gives explanations on a few points in
22 his written statement. Then the Trial Chamber will give the floor to
23 Mr. Seselj, asking him if he wants to cross-examine the witness. If he
24 does not want to cross-examine the witness, Mr. Seselj will still have
25 the possibility of tendering the statement made to BiH authorities which
1 he believes contradicts the written statement, and later on, when
2 examining the written statement, the answers given by the witness to the
3 Chamber is put, and after having possibly looked at the statement made to
4 the authorities of the BiH, that the Trial Chamber will decide whether
5 the written statement will be admitted or not.
6 This is the ruling, and the Prosecution can now prepare for
8 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 I will put on the record, as I indicated earlier, that it is
10 almost certain, if not very likely, that in the event Mr. Seselj declines
11 to cross-examine the witness and then seeks to tender a prior statement
12 of the witness, that the Prosecution will be vehemently opposed to that.
13 Our view would be that he has the opportunity to cross-examine the
14 witness on the prior statement, and if he foregoes that, then our view
15 will be that he should be precluded from tendering that statement. I
16 simply indicate that now so that the accused is very well aware of the
17 position we will be taking with respect to any prior statements of the
19 Having said that, Mr. President, we are ready to commence with
20 the next chapter, if you will, or category of videos. These concern
21 instigation, hate speech, and propaganda.
22 The first clip bears 65 ter number 6002B. This document -- or
23 video was received around the 18th of August, 1999, from an unknown
24 source. This again is amateur footage of a speech by the accused. This
25 clip runs for several minutes. This is 65 ter number 6002B.
1 [Videotape played]
2 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "What represents our most
3 vulnerable point, the Kosovo-Metohija issue, the issue of the Albanian
4 separatist insurgent. The current military police action in
5 Kosovo-Metohija succeeded in eliminating the most extreme aspects of
6 Albanian separatism and repression of the Serbian population that lives
7 there, but I'm convinced that a lasting solution cannot be achieved in
8 this way. In order to achieve a solution to the Kosovo and Metohija
9 question, I propose a new colonization of Kosovo and Metohija.
10 "The question now is how. Of course, one should have no
11 illusions about the possibility of returning those Serbs who have left
12 Kosovo and Metohija, who have learned what it means to live with
13 Albanians, a primitive and uncivilised people, as their next-door
14 neighbours, who have reached Belgrade and Serbia proper, the possibility
15 of returning them to the -- they have found jobs, they send children to
16 school. A possibility of returning them to the nightmare of Kosovo and
17 Metohija, it would be inhumane of any regime to force them by any
18 political means to go back. But the fact that the Serbs who had fled
19 Kosovo and Metohija for the most part would not come back to Kosovo and
20 Metohija does not mean that there can be no new colonization. In order
21 to carry out a new colonization of Kosovo and Metohija, I propose that
22 the Yugoslav and Serbian capital be moved to the area of Kosovo and
24 "Whether it is moved to Pristina, Prizren, or some other place is
25 not so important. What is important is that by moving the capital, the
1 state institutions would be moved, all the state bodies and institutions,
2 several hundred thousand government employees, the civil servants and
3 members of their families would be moved. In this way, the overall
4 ethnic composition of the population of Kosovo and Metohija would change
5 in a significant way, and it would mean a fresh financial injection, and
6 the economic development of this depressed region would accelerate. Of
7 course, I propose that all the military and police academies not directly
8 linked to the commands of particular military districts also be moved to
9 the region of Kosovo and Metohija, which means that several thousand
10 commissioned and non-commissioned officers and police officials and their
11 family members would move, which would also impact the overall ethnic
12 composition of the population of Kosovo and Metohija.
13 "Further, I propose that any economic assistance to Kosovo and
14 Metohija, that is, to the Albanian population that lives there, be
15 immediately stopped. According to the data published by the
16 regime-backed media in Belgrade sometime in March of this year, Kosovo
17 and Metohija receives a million dollars a day from the so-called
18 assistance fund for underdeveloped republics and regions, and what this
19 does for the most part is subsidize the outsized Albanian birth rate. I
20 have nothing against the Albanians continuing to multiply as fast as they
21 do, but not at the expense of Serbs. We, the Serbs, will not finance
22 their disproportionate birth rate.
23 "If they want to procreate at this rate, they should themselves
24 support their children or face the fact that their children will starve.
25 We, the Serbs, will no longer finance them. Since it has become evident
1 that Albania, as a state, has taken a staunchly hostile position towards
2 Yugoslavia and Serbia, and since it has become evident that the vast
3 majority of members of the Albanian ethnic minority living within our
4 borders are staunchly hostile towards the Serbian and Yugoslav state
5 sovereignty and territorial integrity, especially in this vital part of
6 our country, I believe that Yugoslavia and Serbia states have all the
7 authority based on the international law to do anything in their power to
8 protect our state sovereignty and territorial integrity. In that sense,
9 I propose that a zone of 50 or perhaps even 100 kilometres along the
10 Albanians border be declared a zone of strategic interest for our
12 "That the entire Albanian population be moved out of this zone,
13 with just monetary compensation, and be directed to resettle themselves
14 elsewhere in other parts of Yugoslavia, I repeat, with a just
15 compensation, to resettle, let us say, in the territory of the
16 present-day Croatia and Slovenia because they are the most developed.
17 Because these are the most developed parts of Yugoslavia, they would have
18 the least problem in absorbing them, giving them jobs, securing them for
19 civil protection, and it turns out that the Croats and the Slovenes like
20 them the most, support them the most. I am convinced that they will
21 enthusiastically accept this proposal of mine.
22 "By presenting this proposal, I am taking into account the
23 indisputable fact that the real centre of the Albanian separatist
24 insurgence is neither Pristina nor Tirana but Zagreb, and the arable land
25 in this zone along the Albanian border could temporarily be placed under
1 military management. The army would establish agricultural farms,
2 organise agricultural production. This is the most fertile land in all
3 of Europe which under the current Albanian management is yielding the
4 lowest crops in all of Europe because the Albanians are used to living
5 off the assistance of the rest of Yugoslavia and have no need to work or
6 farm this land efficiently.
7 "Military management of several years, let us say 10 or 15 years,
8 would significantly contribute to the country recovering from its
9 economic crisis, especially the bread basket of Metohija could feed
10 almost all of Central Europe and to date cannot even feed Kosovo and
11 Metohija. And what I consider the most important at this time, the most
12 important point, I propose that all 360.000 Albanian immigrants who have
13 crossed into Serbia and Yugoslavia from Albania since the 6th of April,
14 1941, urgently be sent back to Albania, that they be delivered to the UN
15 High Commissioner for Refugees. Throughout the world there are so many
16 richer and larger countries, so let them take them, let them show a
17 little of their humanity. Why should we, the Serbs, always prove our
18 humanity and be stabbed in the back by these Albanian immigrants?
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, do you have any
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Even today, I am very proud of this
22 speech of mine made in 1989. I regret that the OTP did not play the
23 entire speech. I wish that in 1989, I had had an opportunity to come to
24 power. However, there are several problems here.
25 First of all, the dating of this speech is incorrect. It can't
1 have been on the 8th of August, 1989. It can only have been towards the
2 end of August or in early September 1989.
3 Secondly, the question arises as to the temporal relevance. The
4 speech was made in 1989, and my indictment covers the period from the 1st
5 of August, 1991, to September 1993.
6 A third issue is also one of relevance. Kosovo and Metohija and
7 the events there are not, unfortunately, covered by the indictment
8 against me. The question then arises of the motives of the OTP in
9 tendering this document.
10 Fourthly, one must bear in mind that the year 1989 was still a
11 year of full communist dictatorship in Serbia and Yugoslavia. There was
12 no multi-party system. In 1989, I was still a dissident, I was still
13 being persecuted, and I was making speeches and giving lectures as an
15 When I left prison in 1986, until the spring of 1989, I couldn't
16 even travel abroad. The right to a passport was denied me. After a
17 battle of three years, after a judgement of the highest court in
18 Yugoslavia, I was granted a passport, and that was the first time I was
19 able to travel abroad after many, many years.
20 All this has to be borne in mind, and yet the OTP is unable to
21 explain why they wish to tender this speech. As the OTP cannot provide a
22 single argument to induce the Trial Chamber to admit this document, I
23 support the admission of this document so the Trial Chamber can do this
24 without entering into all these objections.
25 I do want this speech to be admitted because I am proud of it.
1 However, what I say about relevance remains.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This speech was held in 1989,
3 end of August or beginning of September. You specify that it's the 8th
4 of August, but this is challenged.
5 The second point, this has to do with Kosovo. Nobody challenges
6 that Kosovo is not part of the indictment, which the accused regrets.
7 This is what he's just told us and has told us on several occasions.
8 The accused is telling us that in 1989, former Yugoslavia was
9 operating as such and he was a dissident.
10 This document can be useful in what way, even though the accused
11 is not against the admission of this document, but what is the purpose of
12 this document?
13 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honour, it can go to evidence of state of mind,
14 the accused's thoughts and processes with respect to other matters that
15 are relevant in the indictment. We could certainly set forth a number of
16 additional arguments if Your Honours would like to hear that. Our view
17 would be that because the accused does not object to the document or the
18 video going into evidence, that that really should be taken into
19 consideration by the Trial Chamber.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall ask my colleagues what
21 they think about it.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Bench, after having
24 deliberated on the matter for some time, has decided to admit the
25 document and ask the Registrar to give it an exhibit number, please.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit P349.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like to specify,
3 because it's not mentioned in the English version, this decision was a
4 majority decision.
5 Let's proceed.
6 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 The next video clip bears 65 ter number 6015A. This video is
8 from May 1991. It runs a little bit longer than one minute. It
9 originally was from TV Novi Sad, a programme entitled "Without Incisions
10 and Without Anaesthesia." The Office of the Prosecutor received this
11 from AID in Sarajevo on 27 August 1998. Again, this video bears 65 ter
12 number 6015A.
13 [Videotape played]
14 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "What do you see as the outcome?
15 Should this thing now started be continued in the sense --
16 "My opinion is that the army must disarm the Ustashas urgently,
17 and then we will recall the Chetniks, bring them all back and disarm
18 them, if the army does this. If the army doesn't do this, and there's no
19 more time for waiting, now we will set about disarming the Croats
20 ourselves. We sent units into Zagreb itself and into many other Croatian
21 towns, special groups equipped and trained for sabotage and terrorist
23 "If the Croats mistreat the Serbian people in those areas where
24 we can't protect the Serbs, if they carry out genocide against them, we
25 will conduct reprisals in places where the Croats are weakest. And you
1 know that when reprisals are carried out, when revenge is taken then
2 revenge is blind and many innocent Croats will suffer. But what can you
4 "While they still got time, they should think about the
5 consequences, and let's hope they don't take the Ustasha dagger and hold
6 it up with us carrying out reprisals. This is their last warning. If it
7 ends up with us carrying out reprisals, we won't be held responsible for
8 the consequences."
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have nothing against having this
11 admitted into evidence, in principle, and I am proud of this statement,
12 but there are a few comments I'd like to make.
13 Firstly, the video is too short. It's one minute and five
14 seconds' long, if I have calculated the time correctly. It's too brief
15 an extract from a lengthier discussion that took an hour and a half, if
16 my memory serves me well.
17 Secondly, the issue of relevance occurs. This is a video from
18 May 1991. This is outside the time frame of the indictment, and we
19 should bear in mind the framework in which this was done.
20 In May 1991, the Serbian Radical Party was a small,
21 extra-parliamentary party. It didn't have a single member in the
22 people's assembly. It was only registered in March 1991, and we had our
23 first member of Parliament in June of that year, and we only had one
24 representative until the end of 1992. This should be borne in mind.
25 It's important.
1 And, secondly, shortening a video in this manner is tantamount to
2 massacring it, because naturally we're dealing with a warning here, don't
3 do certain things, cease attacking, don't incite revenge. Everything
4 that was said was said as a warning, as a deterrent. You should bear in
5 mind the period when this was done. It was in May, that period when we
6 were sending volunteers to certain villages in Slavonia. We wanted to
7 withdraw the volunteers. We were prepared to do this if the army
8 disarmed the Ustasha. And all of this was said in these several
10 If we had seen a lengthier extract from this video, it would have
11 all been a lot clearer. This isn't a hate speech. It's a warning. It
12 says, "Don't take up arms. Revenge is blind. The innocent will suffer,"
13 and so on and so forth. So the sense is, in fact, quite the opposite of
14 the sense that the Prosecution intends.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is a speech aimed as a
16 deterrent, not a hate speech. This is what you have just imparted to us
17 just now. You complain about the fact that it is an excerpt of an
18 interview which lasted one hour and 30 minutes, but we look into the
19 relevance here, because this was dated the 22nd of May, 1991. No MP was
20 represented at the time, so there is no objection as a matter of
22 The Trial Chamber has factored in your remarks, and we'll give it
23 an exhibit number.
24 Let me say that this was shown very quickly. You were wearing a
25 Blazer, and on the Blazer there was an insignia there was an insignia
1 which we cannot distinguish very clearly, in fact we can't see it at all
2 but you were wearing an insignia.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I suggest that we
4 have a look at the video again, and we could zoom in on that insignia.
5 That's technically possible.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's see the video again just
7 for one minute. We have time to do so.
8 [Videotape played]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Stop. Seemingly, there is an
10 insignia where the heart is, but we can't see it.
11 Please proceed.
12 [Videotape played]
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Stop. We can't see it, so
14 we're having a hard time.
15 Mr. Seselj, either you were wearing an insignia or you weren't.
16 The image is not self-explanatory.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You cannot conclude that this is an
18 insignia on the basis of this video. Perhaps it's a bullet hole.
19 Perhaps someone shot me with a large-calibre bullet a little earlier.
20 That's in the sphere of assumptions, but I'll tell you what the truth is.
21 This was really the Serbian coat of arms, a golden coat of arms,
22 the two-headed white eagle with a "Nemanjic" crown on it, surrounded by
23 olive branches, and there was a cross, four Ss, four letters S, but this
24 is something that I can tell you, although you can't see anything. I
25 only wore such a coat of arms. I never wore a coat of arms with the
1 skull on it. I respect that 100-year-old tradition, when Chetniks had
2 such a coat of arms and such a flag, for certain reasons, but there's no
3 longer any need to use such an emblem because it's a pirate symbol in the
4 West, and anyone in the West who sees such a symbol believes that it's a
5 matter of pirates. We didn't want to be seen as pirates, and that's why
6 we avoided such emblems.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, is this coat of
8 arms in our booklet or not?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This emblem is the coat of arms of
10 Serbia today. It's on the Serbian flag, if you have a look, and I can
11 have a look or go through the document that we've been provided with. It
12 will take me a minute or two, if it's -- have a look at page 32. You
13 don't have to have a look at the frame that the two-headed eagle is in,
14 but just have a look at the two-headed white eagle with the crown on its
15 head, and you'll see that this is the coat of arms that I was wearing on
16 that day in the video. But don't pay attention to the frame, because the
17 Army of Republika Srpska constructed the frame for other reasons. So if
18 you don't pay attention to the frame, this is the traditional Serbian
19 coat of arms, and it goes back to the Nemanjic era and the Middle Ages.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, having specified this, can I just ask
21 whether the crown is still a part of the coat of arms?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The crown is part of the state
23 Serbian coat of arms. The crown symbolizes statehood, imperial
24 statehood. Serbia was an empire, had two empires, the emperors, Emperor
25 Dusan and another emperor. So this is the case for the coat of arms now,
1 but it's not on flag of the Serbian Radical Party. The coat of arms on
2 the flag doesn't have a crown, you just have the two-headed white eagle
3 and the two crossed swords.
4 How did this emblem of the Serbian Radical Party appear? We had
5 in mind the Chetnik emblem. The Chetnik emblem doesn't have a crown.
6 It's a two-headed eagle with crossed swords, but it has a skull. That's
7 the old tradition. When we constructed -- when we made the coat of arms
8 for the Serbian Radical Party, we didn't use the skull. The skull is
9 never used as an emblem for the Serbian Radical Party. We had the four
10 Ss and the cross and the shield, but we maintained the crossed swords.
11 It's a modified old Chetnik symbol. It's not a state symbol. It's been
12 adapted to the ideology of the current Serbian Radical Party.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for having specified
14 this. This is useful.
15 Registrar, could we have an exhibit number for the video, please.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit P350.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.
18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 The next video clip bears 65 ter number 6016A. This video is
20 from 4 May 1991. It's a video compilation of television broadcasts from
21 4 to 6 May 1991, originating from SFRY TV, submitted to the Office of the
22 Prosecutor by Natasha Kandic on 1 April 1996. This again is 65 ter
23 number 6016A.
24 [Videotape played]
25 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "All those who proclaimed our
1 honourable duke, "Red Duke," using skilful deceits and their servants in
2 the media should just take one look at the other side of the Danube
3 River, and they will see how much effort our Dr. Vojislav Seselj invested
4 in the last month in helping the Serbs of Slavonia Baranja, and the
5 Serbian Krajina. In the last months, helping the Serbs of Slavonia,
6 Baranja and Serbian Krajina."
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it looks like the Prosecution
9 overcame its timidity and now it says that Natasha Kandic is the source
10 from which they obtained this video. This is a positive development, as
11 far as the conduct of the Prosecution is concerned, although I saw that
12 he blushed somewhat when he mentioned the name "Natasha Kandic," but that
13 doesn't matter now. It's important to know the circumstances under which
14 this video was shot.
15 It was on the 4th of May, 1991. The Prosecution has only taken a
16 short extract out of the video that concerns Mirko Jovic, a guest of the
17 Serbian Radical Party. This was a short extract. It was after the large
18 victory of the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party on Borovo village
19 on the 2nd of May. 16 Croatian policemen died on that occasion,
20 according to our information many more, because the Croats never listed
21 all their victims, all their losses. This is a protest meeting in front
22 of Tito's grave in Belgrade. It was called "Assault on the House of
24 And when we convened this meeting, there was a state of emergency
25 in the JNA Main Staff. Tito's grave was being guarded, and Veselin
1 Sljivancanin was the commander of the unit who had organised machine-gun
2 nests to mow us down if we really ran towards the grave, so we mocked the
3 grave of Tito and we had a huge stake. We wanted to show how we intended
4 to deal with the vampire Tito.
5 So this meeting has a very particular connotation. This could be
6 evidence for the Defence, this video.
7 You should have seen my speech at the meeting. I said how the
8 Main Staff had convened, how they said that they would open fire if we
9 approached Tito's grave, et cetera. But Veselin Sljivancanin told me
10 that they had already organised machine-gun nests around Tito's grave,
11 and they would have opened fire if we'd really started running towards
12 the grave.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we shall give it an exhibit
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P351.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honours, the next video bears 65 ter number
17 6016B. This tape also originates from SFRY TV. It was also submitted by
18 Natasha Kandic on 1 April 1996. It's a clip from the same video
19 compilation as the prior video clip. This clip runs approximately one
20 and a half minutes' long. It was originally taken in early May 1991.
21 65 ter number 6016B.
22 [Videotape played]
23 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "We are not playing around and the
24 Ustasha leader Franjo Tudjman is now finally aware that we are not
25 playing around. We are going to realise everything that we defined as
1 our political goals, and we are guaranteeing this with our own lives.
2 Not even the Turkish Empire could disgrace the Serbian people, nor the
3 Austro-Hungarian Empire, nor fascist Germany. So what could that pitiful
4 bunch of non-historical Croats do? They are attacking unarmed people.
5 They have beaten up dozens of Serbian young men in the police stations.
6 They are attacking women and children, while the Serbian fighters for
7 freedom are only attacking the armed Ustashas. There is not a single
8 unarmed Croat that was attacked by the Serbs. There is not a single
9 Croatian woman or Croatian child that could point their finger at a Serb.
10 We will do away with all armed Croats who are attacking Serbian villages.
11 Not one will survive."
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My first comment concerning
14 Mr. Mundis's statement. He said that the SFRY TV produced this video.
15 Perhaps Yutel was behind it. They were under the control of the then
16 Prime Minister Ante Markovic, but that should then be stated. And this
17 video is of the same meeting, and so then one extract would be better.
18 And, thirdly, this is obviously exculpatory material, because I
19 quite directly state that our position is that we will never oppress the
20 Croatians, the civilians, women and children. I said they would never be
21 the victims of our volunteers. I said that only armed Croats attacking
22 Serbian villages would be targeted. In my opinion, this is material of
23 an exculpatory nature, but since the Prosecution is tendering it, I
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Number, please, Ms. Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P352.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honours, the next clip bears 65 ter number
4 6017A. This clip also runs approximately one and a half minutes' long.
5 It was submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor on or about 1 January
6 2001, from an unknown source. The approximate date of the video clip is
7 6 May 1991, and this again is 65 ter number 6017A.
8 [Videotape played]
9 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Our Western enemies are attempting
10 to carry out a new genocide against the Serbian people. Brothers and
11 sister Serbs, it is our task to stop it, and we are sending this message
12 to our enemies: Not only shall we avenge the present victims, but we
13 will avenge the previous ones, too, when they dared to put the Ustasha
14 knife under the Serbian throat again. Bosnia and the brave Serbian
15 Herzegovina, it is particularly you who must not allow to be divided.
16 You have one political party, the Serbian Democratic Party. You have
17 your leadership, which has proved its qualities in action on the front
18 lines and which has upheld the honour of Serbdom. They showed the
19 Ustasha, who are superior in manpower, that the Serbian heroism is still
20 alive. The Serbian Chetnik units will be active in all other areas of
21 Western Serbia, in Serbian Krajina, in Serbian Slavonia, Baranja, and
22 Western Srem. We shall not give up a single inch of Serbian territory.
23 Let the Slovenes leave Yugoslavia. They have never been our brothers or
24 friends. Let the Croats go too, let Croatia secede, but we are not
25 giving them an inch of the territory to the east of the Karlobag -- of
1 the Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac line."
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Naturally, I'm proud of this speech
4 of mine, too. It was on the 6th of May, on St. George’s day on Mount
5 Romanija. I regret the fact that we've only seen a short extract. We
6 should have had a look at the entire video. I appeared on horse back.
7 It was in front of the cave of a well-known Serbian "hajduk,"
8 Starina Novak, from the period of the fighter against the Turks.
9 But, again, the issue of relevance presents itself. This is the
10 6th of May, 1991, and the indictment covers the period from the 1st of
11 August, 1991.
12 Naturally, there's a short extract which gives a fall impression.
13 We should have had a look at a lengthier extract.
14 As far as the contents are concerned, there's nothing that poses
15 a problem and this continues to be the policies pursued by the Serbian
16 Radical Party. We radicals will never relinquish the western Serbian
17 territories, and sooner or later we will free the Serbian territory under
18 Croatia now.
19 So there's nothing that's in dispute now. The Republic of
20 Serbian Krajina has to be liberated sooner or later. As to when or how,
21 well, that remains to be seen. Perhaps we won't carry this out, we who
22 are alive today, but perhaps our children will. We'll never give this
23 idea up.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Registrar, could we have a
25 number for this clip?
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P353.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.
3 MR. MUNDIS: The next clip, Your Honours, bears 65 ter number
4 6019B. This is a video clip from November 1991, from a television
5 programme called "NS Plus." This is the second of three videotapes
6 connected to a collection of material from the Croatia Ministry of the
7 Interior. The clip in question apparently was originally broadcast on TV
8 Novi Sad, and this clip runs approximately two minutes. This is P6019B.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection before we have
10 a look at the video.
11 Perhaps the interpretation was mistaken. I was told it was from
12 November. It can't be November. It was probably the 11th of May.
13 That's what it says on paper. Perhaps the interpreter made a mistake or
14 the Prosecution, but this doesn't go back to November. The date isn't
15 November, as it says here.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, it seems that this
17 video dates back to May and not November.
18 MR. MUNDIS: It should be May. If I said "November," then I
19 misspoke, but it is from the 11th of May, 1991, as indicated on the table
20 that was distributed.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's take a look
22 at it.
23 [Videotape played]
24 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "There weren't many advertisements,
25 so let's carry on. Ilija Srbin from Novi Sad: A decision was taken
1 today by the Croatian Parliament that the Knin Krajina would fall in
2 June. That was at 3.00 p.m. today. I wasn't listening, I don't know if
3 you heard about it. What is your reaction to that decision?
4 "Well, to be frank, I am personally looking forward to this
5 Croatian attack. It seems that they weren't taught enough of a lessen in
6 Borovo Selo, so we'll make sure that they're given a more severe lesson,
8 "Has the Chetnik detachment already been formed in Bijeli Mani
9 Staro [phoen], when will it be ready?
10 "Yes, there is the committee of the Serbian Chetnik Movement, the
11 committee of the Serbian Radical Party for Baranja, and there are a lot
12 of Chetniks.
13 "Dragan Jandric from Futogo [phoen] would like to hear what you
14 have to say about the statement you made to Pogledi, 'I'll arrest
15 Tudjman, and what kind of guns can hit the letter U on the heads of
16 members of the Croatian MUP from a distance of 1.500 metres.'
17 "I said that I would arrest Tudjman, Mesic and Ante Markovic
18 before they arrested me. A warrant for my arrest has been issued in
19 Croatia as well as in Bosnia-Herzegovina. But it doesn't worry me very
20 much. I never travel in Croatia, anyway, I travel in Serbian lines, in
21 Serbian Krajina, Serbian Slavonia, Serbian Baranja, and Serbian Western
22 Srem. Serbian Chetniks have very good guns these days. It is true that
23 they have a lot of old Thompsons made in 1942, but they have proved to be
24 very effective. You know, if a Chetnik is a good shot and hits the Croat
25 in the forehead, it makes the Croat's eyes pop out, or if a burst of fire
1 cuts a Croat across the neck, his head is literally severed from the
2 body. The gun are very good. Naturally, we only shoot at armed Croats
3 attacking Serbian villages. We have never shot at an unarmed Croat."
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm surprised this is exculpatory
6 material. I just correct something. We're not talking about rifles.
7 We're talking about the Thompson automatic. It has a large calibre. I
8 can't remember the calibre exactly, perhaps 45. I can't remember
9 exactly, but this calibre really leaves significant consequences wherever
10 it hits a man, in the head or in the chest.
11 The journalist was wrong. The Thompson doesn't have a range of
12 1.500 metres. Perhaps that's a range that's possible for the bullet, but
13 the effective range is several hundred metres. This weapon is used for
14 close-range combat. I just had to point this out. So it's a Thompson
15 submachine-gun, and naturally there's nothing I change with regard to
16 what I said here. But you can draw the conclusion that at almost every
17 speech, I emphasise the fact that we are fighting against those and only
18 those who attack Serbian villages and the Serbian people with their arms,
19 but I never advocate attacking civilians, women and children, and this is
20 always present in all my speeches. This is a basis that you can see in
21 all my speeches.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Registrar, could we have a
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit P354.
25 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honours, the next clip bears 65 ter number
1 6010A. This clip is from September 1991. The clip runs for
2 approximately 18 seconds. This was received by the Office of the
3 Prosecutor on 6 November 2002.
4 [Videotape played]
5 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "We will no longer forgive, like we
6 did after the First and the Second World War. The time has come for us
7 to square old accounts as well. The time has come for us to avenge all
8 Serb victims and unite all Serb lands."
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, it's incorrect that
11 this was filmed in September 1991. It has to come from an earlier
12 period, because this was the funeral of the first volunteer of the
13 Serbian Radical Party who was killed, Gradimir Pesic. He was killed
14 somewhere between Borovo Selo and Borovo Naselje in eastern Slavonia.
15 The funeral was held in a village near Crna Trava in the south of present
16 day Serbia. You will see that at that funeral, I'm wearing a
17 short-sleeved shirt, which means that had to be really hot, it had to be
18 summer, so it would have had to be before September 1991.
19 The OTP had the whole speech held at the funeral. It was
20 published in "Velika Serbia," The Gazette of the Serbian Radical Party,
21 and it would have been better had they played the entire speech.
22 Secondly, there's something really amazing here. It says that
23 the recipient, Mr. Ulrich Mussemeyer, he is the recipient and he is the
24 one submitting this, so I wish to learn from him how he handed over this
25 clip over to himself. There has to be a source somewhere. This could
1 have been filmed by Belgrade Television and played on the news. It could
2 have been broadcast on the news, so RTS might be the source, Radio
3 Television Serbia, or it may be some other source. I don't know who
4 precisely filmed this, but you can't have Mr. Mussemeyer listed here both
5 as the source and the recipient.
6 Secondly, the OTP has the clip of my election speech in December
7 1991 during the election campaign. There, I explain in detail what is
8 meant by punishing the Croats for the crimes of World War II. I
9 explained there that it doesn't mean we will take our revenge by killing
10 Croats. I say that we, the Serbs, are a chivalrous people. The Croats
11 have to be punished in the way that people are punished in the modern
12 world. They are punished for their genocide and their crimes by loss of
13 territory. Just as Germany lost vast territories after World War II, so
14 Croatia should have been punished and reduced to its realistic borders,
15 the three counties of Zagreb, Krusevac, Varazdin. It's quite clear but
16 the OTP doesn't wish to explain this here, so they play very brief clips
17 in attempting to support in this way something that they cannot prove.
18 The OTP has that footage in their archives, as it has a lot of other
19 footage as well, but it did not -- it is not presenting these clips in a
20 continuous manner. It's simply extracting small clips out of context,
21 which can then be explained in a quite different manner from the way in
22 which they could be explained if they were seen in the proper context.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mussemeyer, in the document
24 you seem to be the person who submits this video and also receives this
25 video. Is this how it occurred?
1 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Your Honours, it's true I got this video in
2 I think it was 2001 -- just let me check this. No, it was in 2002, and I
3 got it from the director of the Humanitarian Law Centre in Belgrade.
4 I can give you also the name, if it's necessary, no problem.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now we have an
7 Ms. Registrar -- Mr. Seselj first.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's very important for
9 Mr. Mussemeyer to say the name. That's the most important issue here.
10 Otherwise, it seems that he both sent it and received it. He should say
11 who sent it.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
13 Do you have the name of the director?
14 MR. MUSSEMEYER: The name is Sanja [sic] Biserko.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to correct him. The name is
16 Sonja Biserko, but I wanted to hear it live in the courtroom, because
17 apart from Natasha Kandic, there's a whole menagerie of creatures doing
18 similar work. Natasha Kandic is simply the one most visible in all this.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, we need a number.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit 355.
21 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honours, the next videotape bears 65 ter number
22 6028A, this video clip coming from the Radio Television Belgrade is from
23 the 18th of October, 1991. It was submitted to the Office of the
24 Prosecutor by Natasha Kandic on 1 April 1996. The clip runs slightly
25 less than one minute. This is 65 ter number 6028A.
1 [Videotape played]
2 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "In the packed hall of the sports
3 centre in Kosovska Mitrovica with the participation of its leader
4 Vojislav Seselj, after playing the national anthem and after the
5 introductory remarks, Vojislav Seselj addressed the audience.
6 "A moment of decision. A fatal decision has arrived for the
7 Serbian people. We have only two possible options to choose from: to
8 accept the blackmail of the European community, the ultimatum of foreign
9 charlatans to fall on our knees, and the other option is to put up a
10 fight as men and to face all the challenges, to reject this ultimatum as
11 the Serbs rejected the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum in 1914."
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To this very day, I am proud of
14 this speech of mine which I held in October of 1991. Just as then,
15 various international tricksters were leading the European Union. Today,
16 they are leading the European Union, and the enemy is the same. Even
17 today, the European Union is taking away from us Kosovo and Metohija and
18 blackmailing us, but we will not give in. We will not cooperate with our
19 enemies from the European Union in the robbing of Serbia of Kosovo and
20 Metohija. The Serbian enemies are mentioned here, our road forward
21 cannot be towards Serbian enemies. But the question arises of the
22 relevance of this to the indictment. The OTP should amend the indictment
23 and say, for example, that I am opposed to the European Union. And
24 indeed I am, because everything that it has done in the past 18 years has
25 been to the detriment of the Serbian people.
1 So this is really a political issue. Why is this not in my
2 indictment? And the reason I'm being tried here is that I'm hostile to
3 NATO, that I'm opposed to the USA, and that I'm a political opponent of
4 the European Union. The OTP is demonstrating now that these are the real
5 reasons why I'm on trial, but this should be put into the indictment.
6 Why are they making up all sorts of crimes to put in the indictment when
7 all of that is not true.
8 It is true, however, that I am opposed to the European Union,
9 that I'm opposed to the USA, and that I'm a vehement enemy of NATO.
10 There's no doubt about that.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We need a number
12 for this video, Ms. Registrar, please.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P356.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 The final video clip to be shown today bears 65 ter number 6010B.
18 This video is from the autumn of 1991. This clip runs for 40 seconds. I
19 do note that the list indicates, under the description, this is clip B
20 from this videotape. That is, in fact, an error. It should be clip C.
21 This video excerpt comes from a documentary series entitled "Pictures of
22 Words and Hate, Year 2," produced by the Foundation for the Right to
23 Pictures and Words received by the Office of the Prosecutor on 6 November
24 2002. It was originally broadcast on TV Novi Sad, and this is 65 ter
25 number 6010B.
1 [Videotape played]
2 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "The Ustasha came to a Serbian
3 village here, near Kukuruzari, and captured little Ilija, slaughtered him
4 in front of his mother, and took him away like that. His mother is
5 called Milica. This was on his birth. On his birthday -- his birthday,
6 on the 2nd of August of this year, and his mother ran after them so they
7 would at least give her her dead child back, but they didn't give her the
8 child. They took him away and burned him later on. The only thing left
9 of all this was the skull. She would not have even found the skull were
10 it not for another woman, a Roman Catholic, albeit, but at least she had
11 a measure of humanity of feeling in her, and she said, 'I know where they
12 burned your child and I will tell you where the grave is.' So she went
13 there, and all she could find was this skull."
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, what is the
15 relevance, please?
16 MR. MUNDIS: Propaganda, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you see how brazen
19 The Hague Prosecutors Office is. To them, this is propaganda, when a
20 Serbian priest is showing the skull of a young man slaughtered by the
21 Ustasha, the Ustasha burned his body, and this, according to them, is
22 propaganda. One should ask whether the OTP carried out an investigation
23 to prove, by indisputable arguments, that this really is propaganda and
24 not a realistic description of an actual event.
25 This man is an eminent priest, today the bishop of Milosevski
1 [phoen]. He has the honour of guarding the grave of St. Sava and very
2 high-ranking -- he's one of the five most prominent priests of the
3 Serbian Orthodox Church. And the Prosecutor simply says "propaganda."
4 The question of relevance of course arises, relevance in this case, of
5 such a clip, but this is exculpatory material because it shows what the
6 other side was doing, and the OTP is omitting this. A false picture is
7 being presented here in a calculated and tendentious manner. A false
8 picture is being created in The Hague Tribunal of the events in the
9 former Yugoslavia. This false picture is being created by the enormous
10 huge numbers of Serbs who are accused and the very small number of
11 others, Albanians, Macedonians and so on, who are accused. These others
12 are being acquitted, such as Ramush Haradinaj, some Muslim generals who
13 were acquitted here, and so on and so forth. And this is actually
14 evidence against The Hague OTP, because in this war all sides committed
16 I am not justifying any crime committed by the Serb side, and
17 every crime has a perpetrator with a first and last name, the person who
18 executed the crime and the person who ordered the crime. But the Croat
19 and Muslim and Albanian sides were the first to start. They were the
20 ones who started by committing crimes against the Serbs, and then some
21 Serbs, out of blind revenge, committed other crimes. And of course I do
22 not feel that this justifies those crimes, but it partly explains them,
23 and it is brazen to show this clip, attributing Bishop Filaret to
24 negative propaganda, whereas today they are affirming him as an
25 honourable priest, an honourable man who at decisive moments stood up in
1 the defence of the Serbian people and showed to the world what was being
2 done to the Serbs. He opposed the Western propaganda which kept
3 insisting that it was the Serbs who were the criminals, whereas the
4 Croats, the Muslims and the Albanians were defenceless victims, which is
5 why the Serbs were exposed to three months of cruel air strikes by NATO.
6 I am grateful to the OTP for having committed this tactical error
7 and broadcasting this clip, because it makes it possible for me to brand
8 their intentions and their motives.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber will deliberate to
10 see whether we admit it or not.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Chamber has
13 deliberated and decides to admit this video clip, which will be
14 interpreted by the Trial Chamber in view of what has just been said.
15 Could we please have a number, Ms. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P357.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.
18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 That brings us to the end of the videos listed for today. The
20 Prosecution has nothing further for today. We will make VS-1014
21 available tomorrow pursuant to Rule 92 ter and the Trial Chamber's
22 earlier decisions concerning that witness.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I'll ask my colleagues
24 whether we should start at 8.30 or 9.00. It all depends.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So tomorrow we will start at
2 8.30, because my colleagues have to sit in the afternoon, and so we will
3 start tomorrow and the day after tomorrow at 8.30.
4 The hearing is adjourned, and we will meet again -- well, I'll
5 give you the floor in a minute, Mr. Seselj. But we will meet again
6 tomorrow at 8.30.
7 Mr. Seselj, what did you have to add?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Does that mean that tomorrow the
9 second witness announced for this week will not appear in the courtroom?
10 It's very important. Should I prepare for him or not? If he won't
11 appear tomorrow, let the Prosecutor confirm this.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Tomorrow, we have only one
13 witness. The second one will only be there on Thursday? Is that it?
14 For administrative reasons or another, he'll come on Thursday?
15 MR. MUNDIS: That is correct, Your Honours. We have one witness
16 for tomorrow, one witness for Thursday.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
18 So we resume tomorrow at 8.30.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.51 a.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of
21 April, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.